On 4/18/17 12:37, Tom Lane wrote: > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> I think showing bgw_name as backend_type always sounds reasonable. No >> need to treat external implementations differently. > > That's definitely an approach we could use. It would encourage people > to use short bgw_names, which is a constraint that wasn't especially > apparent before, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
Actually, bgw_name is probably not food for pg_stat_activity.backend_type, since it's often not the same for all background workers of the same kind. For example, it might be "parallel worker for PID %d". Ideally, a background worker would have a bgw_type field and perhaps a bgw_name_extra field. However, a background worker might also want to update some part of that dynamically, to change the process title. Many details depend on the particular background workers. -- Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
